In the beginning was the word
An acquaintance lent Yann Martel's Life of Pi to me; I would have never picked it up on my own. I enjoyed it. It made me laugh in places. It was fun.
But that is all it was.
It is nothing more than pleasant. That is not bad, of course, but neither is it extraordinary. Spirituality was considered in amusing fashion, but I found no new insight (thanks perhaps to my attending an Episcopal high school while my father was in seminary). It offers what was to me original rationales for zoos. But mostly it was an adventure told, once conditions had stabilized, with a light-hearted air as a series of vignettes. It is not profound.
When I first read the discussion question that identified chapters 21 and 22 (or whichever they were) as being fundamental to appreciating the work, my reaction was, "Huh??" Upon reflection, I think I understand Martel's point. As a story to make you believe in God, it is interested less in the nature of God than in the nature of belief. The 'real' story is the same one as in Stockton's "The Lady, or the Tiger?": which is to say, it depends upon the reader. More to the point, perhaps, is whether or not it matters what the 'real' story was.
I have read a few much-hyped novels lately. I haven't found any that lived up to the hype. This one was better than some in that it was good, but it was not great. You can find worse things to read. But you can also find better. It is brain candy, I suppose: it gratifies instantly, with little effort on the reader's part, but it offers little of lasting value.
But that is all it was.
It is nothing more than pleasant. That is not bad, of course, but neither is it extraordinary. Spirituality was considered in amusing fashion, but I found no new insight (thanks perhaps to my attending an Episcopal high school while my father was in seminary). It offers what was to me original rationales for zoos. But mostly it was an adventure told, once conditions had stabilized, with a light-hearted air as a series of vignettes. It is not profound.
When I first read the discussion question that identified chapters 21 and 22 (or whichever they were) as being fundamental to appreciating the work, my reaction was, "Huh??" Upon reflection, I think I understand Martel's point. As a story to make you believe in God, it is interested less in the nature of God than in the nature of belief. The 'real' story is the same one as in Stockton's "The Lady, or the Tiger?": which is to say, it depends upon the reader. More to the point, perhaps, is whether or not it matters what the 'real' story was.
I have read a few much-hyped novels lately. I haven't found any that lived up to the hype. This one was better than some in that it was good, but it was not great. You can find worse things to read. But you can also find better. It is brain candy, I suppose: it gratifies instantly, with little effort on the reader's part, but it offers little of lasting value.
posted by Dr. Bubbles at 14:11
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home